Summary: Mrs X complains the Council took more than 5 years to assess and complete a disabled facilities’ grant for her mother and the final adaptations do not meet her long-term needs. The Ombudsman cannot investigate her complaint because it is too late. She also complains the Council was late in responding to her complaint. The Ombudsman does not consider Mrs X has suffered a significant injustice on this point which warrants our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council took more than 5 years to assess her mother, Mrs Y’s, needs and completed adaptations to her home under the disabled facilities grant (DFG) scheme. She says the Council left her to deal with everything which caused her much stress and made her ill. She also says the adaptations do not meet her mother’s long-term needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mrs X and the Council. Including chronologies prepared by Mrs X and the Council and the Council’s response to her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2013 the occupational therapist (OT) referred Mrs Y’s case for a DFG. The OT recommended a stairlift and level access shower.
7. Mrs Y and her family wanted a ground floor extension and decided to continue with this instead. The Council advised that if they went with their own preferred scheme, they would be responsible for managing and progressing the scheme. It would simply make a contribution to the value of the OT recommended works.
8. The following year the Council’s planning department refused the planning application for the extension. There was correspondence between Mrs X and the Council, with Mrs X confirming they still wanted to have their own scheme. Again, the Council reminded them that in this case they were responsible for managing the project.
9. During the next 2/3 years Mrs X corresponded with the Council and Council staff visited the site. Mrs Y’s needs were reassessed. The OT recommended a level access shower, a stairlift and a ground floor toilet. Mrs Y decided she only wanted the downstairs toilet. In 2017, this was installed. Mrs X complained her mother could not access her garden. After reassessment the Council installed a half step access into her garden. In August 2017 the work was inspected, approved by the OT and signed off.

Assessment

10. In 2013 the OT initially recommended work to enable Mrs Y to access her shower and upstairs. She decided not to go ahead with this recommendation, instead choosing to build a ground floor extension. The Council told her that she would be responsible for managing and progressing the project.
11. After some issues such as incomplete documents provided by Mrs X, refused planning permission and OT reassessments, the Council recommended Mrs Y have a downstairs toilet, a level access shower and a stairlift. Mrs Y chose to have only the ground floor toilet installed. The work was completed in 2017. Mrs X was unhappy with the work saying it was too small for her mother to access fully. However, the OT approved the work.
12. The Ombudsman expects people to complain to him within 12 months of them first becoming aware of the issues complained of. Mrs X says she was having problems from 2013 onwards. And the work was completed 2 years ago. If she considered the Council were at fault she should have complained then, or as soon as the work was signed off in 2017. For her complaint to the Ombudsman to be in time, it should have been made to us by August 2018 at the latest.
13. I have considered whether there are good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate this late complaint. Mrs X says the matter subjected her to much stress and she became unwell. And the Council took too long to respond to her complaint. However, she did not complain to the Council until 18 months after work was completed. And even if the Council had responded to her complaint immediately, it would still have been too late for the Ombudsman.
14. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. It says that as the DFG service transferred to it from the district council in late 2017, it did not have any staff who were fully familiar with Mrs Y’s case. Because of this, it took longer for the complaints officer to complete their investigation.
15. While the Ombudsman considers a Council should follow its complaints procedure, I do not consider that Mrs X has suffered a significant personal injustice on this point alone which warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I cannot investigate this complaint because it is too late to investigate matters arising from 2013 and works which were completed in 2017. And I do not consider she has suffered a personal injustice arising from the delay in the Council responding to her complaint which warrants an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman